Groundwork

I am reading "More Than A Theory" by an astronomer named Hugh Ross. He goes over two things that held and continue to hold my attention. The intricacies of DNA and the oddity of the Anthropic Principle. Both nudging toward the alluring though unprovable conclusion that in some fashion we were anticipated and that there are too many 'just-sos' for all this to be just science.

Since those considerations harbor an unavoidable philo/theo content I post them here on this board on this Sunday morning.

DNA is made up of only four elements, arranged in patterns that decide plant/animal and, if animal--what kind? We are only one DNA strand off from being something else besides human.

Yes, there are intricacies, but many things that did not spring from the dust are intricate and we do not automatically assume that some divine intervention created them.

Plastic is a good example. You need oil to make most plastics. Oil is the by-product of dead dinosaurs. If you believe the flat-earthers, dinosaurs co-existed with mankind 6000 or so years ago. Since there is no record of dinosaurs hanging out with the Cro-Magnons further back than that 6000-year period... Well, you get what I am driving at here, right?

The problem with the Anthropic Principle is that it doesn't necessarily require that MAN be the prevalent life form. It could just as well be apes or giraffes or dolphins that prevailed. It could have been rocks a la a "Star Trek" episode because the Principle does not require carbon-based life forms to be the intelligent creatures.

My kid was on an "origins of the universe" kick for a while and we read a lot of stuff. Read some Brandon Carter. That'll get you going. His theory is that we could have turned up anywhere based on the conditions being right, not necessarily on just this planet or in our current form. Carter also postulates more than one universe, which also dumps out another pile of things to consider.

Science is VERY "just so" when you think about it. Things have to meet certain criteria in certain settings and in certain proportions to "gel" (so to speak). And sometimes things are discovered by sheer chance. How many ages did mankind look at moldy bread before someone discovered it could cure a lot of illnesses and conditions?

"Thought provoking" it is. I, of course remind any astronomer that he/she is not necessarily a geneticist, etc. Interestingly enough, the concept of "junk DNA", that is, those non-replicant peices that seem to be present in various humans and apes, and were thought to be meaningless, or thought to be the peices that set human beings apart from other creatures, have recently been found to be contribuiting something.

[quote author=Da Budman link=topic=31551.msg412476#msg412476 date=1252326261]"Thought provoking" it is. I, of course remind any astronomer that he/she is not necessarily a geneticist, etc. Interestingly enough, the concept of "junk DNA", that is, those non-replicant peices that seem to be present in various humans and apes, and were thought to be meaningless, or thought to be the peices that set human beings apart from other creatures, have recently been found to be contribuiting something.

This might alter some theories, too. [/quote]

That is an interesting front in bio research. For so long 'junk' DNA was thought to be ignorable and ignoble. Lately it has risen in many an estimation, prompting me to wonder again if anything is ever wasted.

Diva, thanks for responding. You touched on Carter's postulation of 'multiverses' as possibly explanatory.

That concept seemed to have gained adherents some years ago as a counter to comments by writers such as Freeman Dyson and Steven Hawking who contend the knowable universe shows insistent evidence of design. Perhaps Carter was indulging in an intellectual sleight of hand that was noted by Paul Davies. Namely, that if you can believe in enough multiples you can avoid belief in one, or One, or oneness. In any event the concept of multiverses remains on par with unicorns. Whether that remains so of course depends on future barriers falling to future scientists.

And even if multiples were found where is it written they would not just be duplicates of what we know? Perhaps variety has already maxed out. All this of course is speculative but nonetheless fun.

Finally (and aren't you glad?:-)) there is this from the globe's most vocal and prolific sanstheist Richard Dawkins. He said 'better many worlds than one god'. I can somewhat see his point. For if that one god has qualities other than unity( such as sentience, creativity, judgement, and expectations) then there may be some distance to close and some fretting to do.